It’s actively more efficient to just give free food to everyone, qualifying it just adds administrative overhead and gives space for already at-risk people to fall through the cracks because holy shit guess what, they don’t tend to have the time or energy to spend on filling in 500 pages of paperwork to apply for welfare!
Yes, fucking give billionaires potatoes, i think society can survive that terrible terrible expense.
Hang on. Are you saying government bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful. You need to be careful expressing opinions like that round here you’ll get down voted.
Food should be a basic right. So, yes. I would argue that it should be the government’s job.
In fact, I would argue that all the basic survival needs should just be provided to us free of charge. Leave money and income and working as such for earning yourself luxuries.
Anything less and you’re just forcing people to work under the threat of starvation and homelessness. And is that right?
…also were talking about literal children here. It’s not like they have a choice exactly.
I agree. We need a federal lawsuit to enforce this. The federal government has been completely ignoring homelessness and the complete lack of a social safety net throughout the US and it’s just killing the country.
100% wrong. Anything that can run out can never be a “right”. Freedom of speech can be, freedom from unjust search and seizure can be.
What happens when the money, or the food, or the houses run out?
I’m in the UK. It doesn’t matter that we have an NHS (which I am a huge fan of btw), I have zero hope of being able to use it in anything like a timely manner because it’s falling to bits. Not even healthcare can be a “right”
NHS is a government service you explicitly pay for (unless you are exempt from NI). It is not a right, it is something you purchase. You can be exempt from paying due to your personal circumstances, but if all is well - you pay.
The fact that our beloved government does not deliver what you pay for is another topic, but it certainly should.
Thin ice. I believe there must be a balance between free capitalism and a moderately strong government with a safety net. People do fail in life, that should not necessarily lead to death. Children in particular are hungry not because they failed, but because their parents did. And there is a role for the government to support the children in need. This was a role of a tribe in the early days, or community slightly later; then governments took over.
This safety net has to exist for other categories of people in need, the extent of this support is to be debated in a healthy society.
Personally I do see a merit even in the universal income. Not because this is everyone’s birthright, but because it may soon become a necessity.
To feed children? Step back, take a look in the mirror, and ask yourself where you went wrong that you’re talking about taking away food from children’s mouths. You are a monster.
If you also think abortion should be illegal in addition to not feeding them, you aren’t just a monster, you’re an indescribably awful evil.
You do realize taxes are not the same amount taken from everyone? And if you’re poor enough you don’t pay anything on taxes. If you’re a step above that, you get back everything you paid on taxes at the end of the year. I’m not really sure why you think tax funded lunches would garnish wages from the poor.
No, it’s not a straw man at all. It’s a logical thing to bring up when you are stating that children don’t deserve to be fed by taxpayer money. The state forces chosen to exist and then makes it illegal for taxes to pay for their food thereby proving that they don’t give a damn about the kids at all.
To put ovide an environment of personal safety and property rights so people can be independently prosperus. I have no issue with a welfare state, but that is not the primary function of government.
What happens when you run out of other peoples money?
In my opinion, yes. But even if you disagree with that.
This is the federal government attempting to undo states choosing to feed children. So this is even worse, this is them actively taking away the ability for states to choose to feed children.
It literally is, by the doctrine on parens patriae. It is the duty of the state to act in the best interests of its citizens who unable to pursue those interests themselves, whether it’s because they are incapacitated, or minors. This goes back centuries, to the time of monarchy. Our ancestors resolved the question of “who should care for the orphans?” with the simple answer, “it is the king’s duty.”
It is the government’s job, in its role as sovereign, to feed kids who don’t get enough to eat. And if it’s not, we should just burn it all to the fucking ground, because why else even have a society?
It’s easier for everyone to have free meals than a select few, I feel. It would also get rid of an easy target on lower income kids being bullied for having the “free lunch”.
Probably also much cheaper per. Trying to set up a meals program for the fee underprivileged - probably should just order Panera delivered. But if you go through the overhead of setting up a program, the cost of more meals is probably marginal.
Also, how about when kids forget. Why does it always seem to be the teacher who has to buy emergency food?
To me, it’s like prison: kids always compare school to prison, so let’s go with that. The government is forcing them to be there past meal times, and not letting them out. The school is claiming parental authority to watch out for their needs. One of them is food, dammit
Yes, the government is wasteful and bureaucratic I agree. Is my solution anyone can have the free meals if they apply for it they’re simple to apply for through the school.
That would immediately eliminate a huge number of unnecessary lunches to purchase. I would happily have been buying my kids their school lunches through their first three years of school, but that was not a choice offered to me.
When I went to school half the kids are on preschool dinners literally nobody cared.
Incidentally my family were dirt poor when I was a little but we weren’t poor enough to qualify for free school lunches but we may do with sandwiches. Presuming the poor are incapable and requiring of constant charity is the soft bigotry of low expectation
Presuming the poor are a monolith is problematic. There’s also a huge difference between being broke and being broke in a poverty-defined culture. There are folks who are broke and still have a big view of the world, and folks who are broke and have a very narrow view of a very small world. That said, I don’t understand the hostility to a hand out.
It’s a major failure of a society when people don’t have access to the basics. Basic food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare. America fails quite badly on this.
Wendy’s is luxury food however. If you want it, go earn money and buy it yourself.
I’m pretty sure we’re saying the opposite… We want to tax THE RICH. You know, the guys with billions and paying almost no taxes because of loopholes only they can use.
How about they pay their FUCKING FAIR SHARE so the rest of us aren’t left picking up the damn tab every time.
Quit using bad faith strawman arguments you absolute monster.
You guys will make up ANY ridiculous straw man argument to screw yourself and everyone over won’t you? You just are desperate to make everyone except the 1% stay suffering.
I swear everyone in this thread is having a hallucination that I’m somebody I’m not. I presume you think I’m sort of some of red that wearing uber conservative?
Do people’s actual opinions matter at all.
Perhaps I should think you’re a communist or something and then accuse you of it?
Again, do you understand what putting quotes around a word means? It doesn’t sound like you do. And no feelings were hurt, that’s a lie. I’m not sure why you’re lying.
In the Declaration of the Independence it states thusly:
“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Since you cannot have Life without food, it would logically follow that it is the government’s job to (secure these rights) food for people. If it does not, then the Declaration of Independence states that we can overthrow the government.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about who produces what. It just says that you have the right to those things, and that the states sole purpose is to ensure that.
Wow, the smooth brain takines of this sub would down vote me out of existence and “banish” me if they had the chance. Great advert for the society you would run.
None of you have any inquiry as to why I would say that.
Ban abortions, then starve the children. If wasn’t already apparent that the Republican Party is evil, this should make things much clearer.
Removed by mod
Starving children don’t learn. An educated populace is good for the economy. Feeding children benefits you directly in the long-term.
But people like you never think about things past the short-term.
Fix the broken arse country so people can afford food. But until then, don’t feed the rich kids. Your money will go further
Removed by mod
Yes, you ghoul, you do have a moral responsibility to help feed starving children in your community. Morality is wild, eh?
Totally possible. I dont need to feed rich peoples children
That’s arguably the single most fundamental job of the government, yes.
The fucking romans had this figured out god damn.
I am curious, what did the romans do?
Give free food to poor people, it was literally an easy way to win votes to simply promise more food to the poor.
The aqueduct?
Brought peace?
Bread and Circuses
I disagree. You will always run out of other people’s money
did someone forget to change to a puppet account? nice one
What, what are you talking about. This is my only account
I disagree 100%. It’s the governments job to provide a safe environment to be individually free to be successful.
And “bread and circuses” what’s a reference to a distracted demos
you… do realize you’re just straight up saying that people should die, right? like there are people who need free food to not starve to death.
Nope. Just feed the poor ones.
Do you like giving your taxes to feed the rich?
It’s actively more efficient to just give free food to everyone, qualifying it just adds administrative overhead and gives space for already at-risk people to fall through the cracks because holy shit guess what, they don’t tend to have the time or energy to spend on filling in 500 pages of paperwork to apply for welfare!
Yes, fucking give billionaires potatoes, i think society can survive that terrible terrible expense.
Hang on. Are you saying government bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful. You need to be careful expressing opinions like that round here you’ll get down voted.
You can’t have a safe environment if people are starving.
I don’t get your point
starving people tend to do whatever it takes to not starve to death, because you know they don’t want to die
Ooookaaaayyyyy
Food should be a basic right. So, yes. I would argue that it should be the government’s job.
In fact, I would argue that all the basic survival needs should just be provided to us free of charge. Leave money and income and working as such for earning yourself luxuries.
Anything less and you’re just forcing people to work under the threat of starvation and homelessness. And is that right?
…also were talking about literal children here. It’s not like they have a choice exactly.
I would LOVE if we could get to that system.
Everything paid for, you can sit at home all day if you want, but that will be with no luxuries.
You want Netflix and games and hobbies and whatever? Get a job to earn luxury income.
And it wouldn’t even be hard to do. We would simply have to not have fucking BILLIONAIRES. That’s about it.
I agree. We need a federal lawsuit to enforce this. The federal government has been completely ignoring homelessness and the complete lack of a social safety net throughout the US and it’s just killing the country.
100% wrong. Anything that can run out can never be a “right”. Freedom of speech can be, freedom from unjust search and seizure can be.
What happens when the money, or the food, or the houses run out?
I’m in the UK. It doesn’t matter that we have an NHS (which I am a huge fan of btw), I have zero hope of being able to use it in anything like a timely manner because it’s falling to bits. Not even healthcare can be a “right”
NHS is a government service you explicitly pay for (unless you are exempt from NI). It is not a right, it is something you purchase. You can be exempt from paying due to your personal circumstances, but if all is well - you pay. The fact that our beloved government does not deliver what you pay for is another topic, but it certainly should.
I agree. Do you think it should be a right?
Thin ice. I believe there must be a balance between free capitalism and a moderately strong government with a safety net. People do fail in life, that should not necessarily lead to death. Children in particular are hungry not because they failed, but because their parents did. And there is a role for the government to support the children in need. This was a role of a tribe in the early days, or community slightly later; then governments took over. This safety net has to exist for other categories of people in need, the extent of this support is to be debated in a healthy society. Personally I do see a merit even in the universal income. Not because this is everyone’s birthright, but because it may soon become a necessity.
Yes, fuck you
To feed children? Step back, take a look in the mirror, and ask yourself where you went wrong that you’re talking about taking away food from children’s mouths. You are a monster.
If you also think abortion should be illegal in addition to not feeding them, you aren’t just a monster, you’re an indescribably awful evil.
Removed by mod
You do realize taxes are not the same amount taken from everyone? And if you’re poor enough you don’t pay anything on taxes. If you’re a step above that, you get back everything you paid on taxes at the end of the year. I’m not really sure why you think tax funded lunches would garnish wages from the poor.
Removed by mod
Also, nice strawman about abortion, you have zero idea about my opinions
No, it’s not a straw man at all. It’s a logical thing to bring up when you are stating that children don’t deserve to be fed by taxpayer money. The state forces chosen to exist and then makes it illegal for taxes to pay for their food thereby proving that they don’t give a damn about the kids at all.
Removed by mod
What is the governments job if it‘s not „preventing children from staeving“?
To put ovide an environment of personal safety and property rights so people can be independently prosperus. I have no issue with a welfare state, but that is not the primary function of government.
What happens when you run out of other peoples money?
Other people’s money. You mean taxes? What are our taxes supposed to do if not help people?
Lots of things. Roads. Police, healthcare, army, find ten civil service required to make it all work.
And also a welfare state
In my opinion, yes. But even if you disagree with that.
This is the federal government attempting to undo states choosing to feed children. So this is even worse, this is them actively taking away the ability for states to choose to feed children.
It literally is, by the doctrine on parens patriae. It is the duty of the state to act in the best interests of its citizens who unable to pursue those interests themselves, whether it’s because they are incapacitated, or minors. This goes back centuries, to the time of monarchy. Our ancestors resolved the question of “who should care for the orphans?” with the simple answer, “it is the king’s duty.”
It is the government’s job, in its role as sovereign, to feed kids who don’t get enough to eat. And if it’s not, we should just burn it all to the fucking ground, because why else even have a society?
Removed by mod
Nothing! That’s why I framed my reply as a factual statement, rather than a personal attack.
Wow. The first person on this thread to not just insult me.
I have no issue with free school meals, I just don’t want them to be universal, feeding rich kids is crazy.
It’s easier for everyone to have free meals than a select few, I feel. It would also get rid of an easy target on lower income kids being bullied for having the “free lunch”.
Probably also much cheaper per. Trying to set up a meals program for the fee underprivileged - probably should just order Panera delivered. But if you go through the overhead of setting up a program, the cost of more meals is probably marginal.
Also, how about when kids forget. Why does it always seem to be the teacher who has to buy emergency food?
To me, it’s like prison: kids always compare school to prison, so let’s go with that. The government is forcing them to be there past meal times, and not letting them out. The school is claiming parental authority to watch out for their needs. One of them is food, dammit
In case you didn see my reply to the guy below 👇 it addresses some of your points too
Yes, the government is wasteful and bureaucratic I agree. Is my solution anyone can have the free meals if they apply for it they’re simple to apply for through the school.
That would immediately eliminate a huge number of unnecessary lunches to purchase. I would happily have been buying my kids their school lunches through their first three years of school, but that was not a choice offered to me.
When I went to school half the kids are on preschool dinners literally nobody cared.
Incidentally my family were dirt poor when I was a little but we weren’t poor enough to qualify for free school lunches but we may do with sandwiches. Presuming the poor are incapable and requiring of constant charity is the soft bigotry of low expectation
Presuming the poor are a monolith is problematic. There’s also a huge difference between being broke and being broke in a poverty-defined culture. There are folks who are broke and still have a big view of the world, and folks who are broke and have a very narrow view of a very small world. That said, I don’t understand the hostility to a hand out.
It’s a major failure of a society when people don’t have access to the basics. Basic food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare. America fails quite badly on this.
Wendy’s is luxury food however. If you want it, go earn money and buy it yourself.
Removed by mod
You forgot to log into your other account again didn’t you x3
Please explain. I don’t understand what point you are getting at. Am I contradicting myself
100% agree. Things are totally broken and the way the USA is being run is a shit show.
There are no saviours from either party.
The end of empire is basically here.
You’re arguing against feeding fucking children…
Did you ever stop to think, “are we the baddies?”
Unbelievable.
You want to tax the poor to feed rich peoples children, you absolute monster
I’m pretty sure we’re saying the opposite… We want to tax THE RICH. You know, the guys with billions and paying almost no taxes because of loopholes only they can use.
How about they pay their FUCKING FAIR SHARE so the rest of us aren’t left picking up the damn tab every time.
Quit using bad faith strawman arguments you absolute monster.
What? Bad faith straw men?
I’m expressing my exact point
Wendy’s
Dyslexic here. Thanks
Two downvotes for being neurodiverse. Best place is actually worse than Reddit
You guys will make up ANY ridiculous straw man argument to screw yourself and everyone over won’t you? You just are desperate to make everyone except the 1% stay suffering.
“you guys”?
I swear everyone in this thread is having a hallucination that I’m somebody I’m not. I presume you think I’m sort of some of red that wearing uber conservative?
Do people’s actual opinions matter at all.
Perhaps I should think you’re a communist or something and then accuse you of it?
You’re right. Let’s send the children back to the mines, otherwise they dont deserve to eat.
Case in point
Come on now.
Bread and Circuses.
You’re an evil ghoul. Evil ghouls get banished, not fed.
You have no idea about me but are happy to say I should be banished? Out of interest, how do you feel about Stalin?
Stalin burns in the depths of hell for betraying his people and his own revolution, not just for being a homicidal maniac.
Ghouls like you can join him.
Fucking hell. That’s a bit harsh
I don’t take kindly to starving kids, especially in the richest country to ever exist.
Me either
He called me a tankie earlier. He’s not all there.
Sorry for the hurt feelings there.
You did call being bourgeois a “crime”
Again, do you understand what putting quotes around a word means? It doesn’t sound like you do. And no feelings were hurt, that’s a lie. I’m not sure why you’re lying.
Sorry, you sounded like you had hurt feelings
It basically is in a fairly straightforward way.
In the Declaration of the Independence it states thusly:
Since you cannot have Life without food, it would logically follow that it is the government’s job to (secure these rights) food for people. If it does not, then the Declaration of Independence states that we can overthrow the government.
Really no. Are you squinting at the penumbra’s? You have the freedom to pursue the production and ownership of food.
Children
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about who produces what. It just says that you have the right to those things, and that the states sole purpose is to ensure that.
Er. … yes
Wow, the smooth brain takines of this sub would down vote me out of existence and “banish” me if they had the chance. Great advert for the society you would run.
None of you have any inquiry as to why I would say that.
deleted by creator